This article outlines the available options under the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ACR rules and discusses the strategic considerations in determining whether ACR might be advantageous, particularly in light of increasing pressure from clients to reduce costs and expedite the decision-making process.
On Nov. 13, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Chief Judge Prost, Judge Mayer, and Judge Chen issued a unanimous decision in Promega Corp. v. Life Technologies Corp. On remand from the United States Supreme Court, the panel affirmed a grant of judgment as a matter of law by the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin that the plaintiff failed to prove its infringement case under §§35 U.S.C. 271(a) and 271(f)(1). The panel affirmed the district court's denial for a new trial on damages and infringement, and reaffirmed its prior holdings on enablement, licensing, and active inducement issues.
In a case of first impression, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has decided that the newsworthiness and public interest exceptions to Indiana's right-of-publicity statute do apply to online fantasy sports companies that use college athletes' names and likenesses.
Written opinions of counsel are gaining renewed interest as a valuable tool to limit liability for willful patent infringement. A patent opinion that is competently written by a registered patent attorney sets forth the factual and legal basis for finding a patent not infringed, invalid, and/or unenforceable. However, to be effective, the timing of the rendered patent opinion may be critical.
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split, Finds That Venue Is Not Waived Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) for Cases Brought before TC HeartLand
Federal Circuit Reverses Award of Lost Profits Because Product Sold to a Single Customer Was an Available Non- Infringing Alternative
In the context of a copyright case, a defendant's prior bad acts and prior conduct are more useful to a plaintiff than is typical in civil litigation. In many instances, copyright infringement lawsuits are brought against defendants who have been sued before for infringement, or related misconduct, or who have been the subject of allegations or informal complaints, or who simply have experience in copyright matters.
Venue in patent cases lies "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term "resides" coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
After Several IP-Heavy Seasons, the 2017 Term At the U.S. Supreme Court Looks to Be a Quiet One for Intellectual Property — with One Big Exception
The 2017 term at the U.S. Supreme Court looks to be a quiet one for intellectual property. But with one potential bang in the middle.
For most global entertainment and media companies, the need to think about how to protect intellectual property in China is an inevitable reality. For a few years, there have been indications that China is willing to be more protective of IP owners' rights. But recent events signal there's still work to be done. These developments highlight that, despite small gains, protecting intellectual property in China can still be a major headache for companies and in-house attorneys.
The European Commission (EU) is ramping up pressure on tech companies to more aggressively use automated filtering to scrub "illegal" content from the Internet, a move that is drawing criticism from some lawyers and free speech activists in Silicon Valley.
